Which is the optimal length of speaker wires?
Moderator: Staff
No, I don't think so.Azazello wrote:Do you conciser it a possibility that there are other "optimal" lengths? for example; if the result have to do with some kind of wavelength, 4,96 meter might be good as well?
10 m sounds very dull.
5 m is much better than 10, but still dull.
3 m is better still etc.
If you listen to the differences, you'll hear it's a gradual change and then a peak at 2.48 which sounds just right. Shorter becomes harsh and restless. There are no ups and downs in performance over various lengths, so nothing indicates the influence of a wavelength.
The only way I can us 2.48 m in my listening room, at the moment is to put the Tundras in the AV unit.
This would mean two Linn silvers of 9 metres each, connecting Sagatuns to Tundras.
Should I consider doing this? or would i lose something in the long silvers/soldering etc
If so - where do I source the silvers and how much would they cost?
This would mean two Linn silvers of 9 metres each, connecting Sagatuns to Tundras.
Should I consider doing this? or would i lose something in the long silvers/soldering etc
If so - where do I source the silvers and how much would they cost?
Kalla/Sag M/Tun M3/242/LP12/Slip7
Kalla/Giella Pi/JBL308/RS2e
Majik LP12/Boazu/110s
Kalla/Giella Pi/JBL308/RS2e
Majik LP12/Boazu/110s
+1
Fredrik and others seem united that it's not possible to improve Linn factory soldering. Therefore, keep your IC's 1.2m long since source first theory dictates that speaker cable is less important.
The main thing is that they are not too short. I seem to recall Fredrik stating that significantly longer than 2.48m was not such as big deal, where as short can be quite fatiguing. Anthony's are over 5m and nothing wrong with his system :)
Fredrik and others seem united that it's not possible to improve Linn factory soldering. Therefore, keep your IC's 1.2m long since source first theory dictates that speaker cable is less important.
The main thing is that they are not too short. I seem to recall Fredrik stating that significantly longer than 2.48m was not such as big deal, where as short can be quite fatiguing. Anthony's are over 5m and nothing wrong with his system :)
This is a tricky one! I have only made a few comparisons and they point in different directions.u252agz wrote:The only way I can us 2.48 m in my listening room, at the moment is to put the Tundras in the AV unit.
This would mean two Linn silvers of 9 metres each, connecting Sagatuns to Tundras.
At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).
The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.
I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
I went from standard length silver (1.2m) interconnect with 5m speaker cable, to 3m silver interconnect and 2.5m speaker cable. It was a very good improvement.
I first tried the shorter speaker cable with 1.2m interconnects and moving the bits closer to see if it was an improvement. It definitely was. So I got some 3m silver interconnects made. The interconnect sound may have suffered because of this, but it's very minor relative to the shorter speaker cable improvement.
I first tried the shorter speaker cable with 1.2m interconnects and moving the bits closer to see if it was an improvement. It definitely was. So I got some 3m silver interconnects made. The interconnect sound may have suffered because of this, but it's very minor relative to the shorter speaker cable improvement.
Also take into consideration the surface of the new location may affect sound as well.lejonklou wrote:This is a tricky one! I have only made a few comparisons and they point in different directions.u252agz wrote:The only way I can us 2.48 m in my listening room, at the moment is to put the Tundras in the AV unit.
This would mean two Linn silvers of 9 metres each, connecting Sagatuns to Tundras.
At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).
The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.
I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
Thanks for the advice folks,
I think I would have to try some long silvers, and 2.48m K200 and see how they affect the music before deciding to go ahead.
Anthony has a point - the Tundras would end up on glass shelves in the MDF AV unit vs nice solid walnut ones in the solid wood Hi fi Unit.
If I can get my hands on the above cables -I will try with surface cables and decide.
Inserting the cables into the floor/ walls is a half a day job for my builders and a full day for me trying to reconnect the AV Amp. I need to be sure this would be worthwhile.
I think I would have to try some long silvers, and 2.48m K200 and see how they affect the music before deciding to go ahead.
Anthony has a point - the Tundras would end up on glass shelves in the MDF AV unit vs nice solid walnut ones in the solid wood Hi fi Unit.
If I can get my hands on the above cables -I will try with surface cables and decide.
Inserting the cables into the floor/ walls is a half a day job for my builders and a full day for me trying to reconnect the AV Amp. I need to be sure this would be worthwhile.
Kalla/Sag M/Tun M3/242/LP12/Slip7
Kalla/Giella Pi/JBL308/RS2e
Majik LP12/Boazu/110s
Kalla/Giella Pi/JBL308/RS2e
Majik LP12/Boazu/110s
That's a surprise. Is it possible you soldered the Black IC's better than the 1.2m Silvers?lejonklou wrote:At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).
The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.
I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
No. I compared the two when using the long speaker cables. The Silvers were clearly better.Charlie1 wrote:That's a surprise. Is it possible you soldered the Black IC's better than the 1.2m Silvers?lejonklou wrote:At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).
The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.
I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
But as a whole, the long IC and 2.48 m K200 was more enjoyable.
Is now an appropriate time to get in to the whole, "Balanced vs unbalanced" cable run discussion?lejonklou wrote:No. I compared the two when using the long speaker cables. The Silvers were clearly better.Charlie1 wrote:That's a surprise. Is it possible you soldered the Black IC's better than the 1.2m Silvers?lejonklou wrote:At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).
The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.
I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
But as a whole, the long IC and 2.48 m K200 was more enjoyable.
Soon I would like to know this as I prepare to move back to my apartment and take up floorboards to lay new cables, etc.
My mini dilemma being.. Silver RCAs to x3 Tundra (212 + 225). Or, Silver XLRs to current set-up: KCT/d - 212 and 4200 - 225.
If it was purely a question of aesthetics, it would be the three Tundra in a row under the TV and black array on black ash speakers. Heavy ninja vibe. I don't doubt the sound wouldn't be too much of a concern, either.
My interest is whether running lengths of interconnect - mine would be almost 3 x 6mtr - is served better as Balanced, or RCA ? General consensus seems to be Balanced, but how much difference is there between the two?
I prefer unbalanced.moog_man wrote:Is now an appropriate time to get in to the whole, "Balanced vs unbalanced" cable run discussion?
Soon I would like to know this as I prepare to move back to my apartment and take up floorboards to lay new cables, etc.
My mini dilemma being.. Silver RCAs to x3 Tundra (212 + 225). Or, Silver XLRs to current set-up: KCT/d - 212 and 4200 - 225.
If it was purely a question of aesthetics, it would be the three Tundra in a row under the TV and black array on black ash speakers. Heavy ninja vibe. I don't doubt the sound wouldn't be too much of a concern, either.
My interest is whether running lengths of interconnect - mine would be almost 3 x 6mtr - is served better as Balanced, or RCA ? General consensus seems to be Balanced, but how much difference is there between the two?
Both from a theoretical point of view (balanced is more noisy and there are problems associated with splitting and adding signals), from practical experiments (they always seem to loose a bit of flow compared to unbalanced) and in addition, the current best interconnect cables are unbalanced. For instance Linns Silver cable, which is better in the unbalanced version than in the balanced.
6 m is no problem in a home environment, unless you are running the cables next to mains power cables or something else that is high voltage or high current.
- Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
Correct.tokenbrit wrote:I don't think there is consensus
It's depending on the quality of the silver cables!
Me and Linnofil once compared around 15 pairs = 30 cables one by one. Some balanced.
All were placed in best to worst.
Among these...4 great single-ended and 2 balanced were just great.
Most were good, but 2 were boring.
(NOTE - of course all cables were Linn original. Would NEVER ever use a "home-soldered" cable)
So if you compare a great balanced pair with a bad single ended pair...well guess the outcome.
So if you compare balanced vs single ended - start selecting two good pairs!
In my system the best performance was balanced to the pre and single ended to the power amps. But again, it can be different with other cables!
PS
I suggest moving the rack/speakers to be able to use original Linn IC's and Lejonklou K400. It really is worth it.
It's all about musical understanding!
Very interesting.
Thanks, both for your thoughts.
Looks like I get to fulfill both aesthetic and aural wishes, then. That's good.
Music Lover, fyi - I consider myself very fortunate to have a pair of K-200 made up by Fredrik last summer. Prior to that I was an obedient advocate of K-400, albeit both extremely short and longer (than the recommended 2.48mtr). I'm unable to quantify exactly how or why, but the 2.48 length works beautifully. So much so that I haven't bothered to compare single-wired Ljnk K-200 vs bi-wired 'regular' K-400 into 212s, which would be through the 4200.
In an ideal world, ie. When funds are available, I'd like to try some Ljnk K-400s. That's the only fair way to audition single-wired vs bi-wire to determine any advantage.
Fredrik - appreciate your insights. The i/c will run under the floorboards - away from mains cabling and so on.
Thanks, both for your thoughts.
Looks like I get to fulfill both aesthetic and aural wishes, then. That's good.
Music Lover, fyi - I consider myself very fortunate to have a pair of K-200 made up by Fredrik last summer. Prior to that I was an obedient advocate of K-400, albeit both extremely short and longer (than the recommended 2.48mtr). I'm unable to quantify exactly how or why, but the 2.48 length works beautifully. So much so that I haven't bothered to compare single-wired Ljnk K-200 vs bi-wired 'regular' K-400 into 212s, which would be through the 4200.
In an ideal world, ie. When funds are available, I'd like to try some Ljnk K-400s. That's the only fair way to audition single-wired vs bi-wire to determine any advantage.
Fredrik - appreciate your insights. The i/c will run under the floorboards - away from mains cabling and so on.
I've been told that KDS/1 have transformers on the balanced output and therefore it's preferable with KK. ADS (either version) do not.Music Lover wrote:...
In my system the best performance was balanced to the pre and single ended to the power amps. But again, it can be different with other cables!
...
Both balanced and unbalanced outputs are through a transformer on the Klimax (and K Renew) DS players. The same is true for Urika.stefan wrote:I've been told that KDS/1 have transformers on the balanced output and therefore it's preferable with KK. ADS (either version) do not.
And if you read the Urika manual, you will find that its designers recommend the unbalanced output for best performance, unless very long cable runs are necessary.
OK, thanks for clarify Fredrik. As I suspected from posts in the past from ML and others, you are comparing cables rather than balanced/unbalanced.lejonklou wrote:Both balanced and unbalanced outputs are through a transformer on the Klimax (and K Renew) DS players. The same is true for Urika.stefan wrote:I've been told that KDS/1 have transformers on the balanced output and therefore it's preferable with KK. ADS (either version) do not.
And if you read the Urika manual, you will find that its designers recommend the unbalanced output for best performance, unless very long cable runs are necessary.
I guess both unbalanced and balanced have its pros and cons, but how do you come to the conclusion that balanced are more noisy?lejonklou wrote:I prefer unbalanced.
Both from a theoretical point of view (balanced is more noisy and there are problems associated with splitting and adding signals), from practical experiments (they always seem to loose a bit of flow compared to unbalanced) and in addition, the current best interconnect cables are unbalanced. For instance Linns Silver cable, which is better in the unbalanced version than in the balanced.
...
Also interesting to find that cables does not nessesarily conform to the source first rule.
There are several aspects of balanced versus unbalanced. One is the real-life practical aspect, such as when Linnofil and ML compared all of their interconnects to pick out the best ones. Then they concluded that the best cables won, regardless of the balanced/unbalanced issue.stefan wrote:OK, thanks for clarify Fredrik. As I suspected from posts in the past from ML and others, you are comparing cables rather than balanced/unbalanced.
I haven't made any such comparison. In order to evaluate them for my own products, I tried to give both options an equal opportunity and therefore soldered my own balanced and unbalanced interconnects (making them as identical as possible). With those I have compared circuits that others have designed and circuits I have designed myself. And to sum it up, balanced usually sounds more dynamic while unbalanced is more nuanced and harmonic. I decided to continue with unbalanced after this, because I found it better. But this is no decision cut in stone. If an irresistable balanced circuit comes to mind, I won't heistate to try it. It's all about getting the most musical enjoyment!
This is no conclusion of mine, it's common knowledge. Just as balanced is more effective at supressing interference, the circuits also become more noisy. I'd say that most balanced input circuits are at least 6 dB more noisy than their unbalanced counterparts.hcl wrote:I guess both unbalanced and balanced have its pros and cons, but how do you come to the conclusion that balanced are more noisy?
But this is a lame argument and I shouldn't have brought it up. Because minimizing noise is not super important in my opinion. I have many times traded some noise for better stability, when the result has been more musical.
As the noise in each leg in the balanced input is non correlated the total noise on the output will be 3 dB higher. If each leg is applied with a signal corresponding to a similar single ended signal, the output equals a correlated sum i.e. 6 dB larger, so the noise will only be 3 dB higher and the signal 6 dB higher hence the signal to noise ratio 3 dB higher than in an ubalanced circuit. If the source signal has to be split in to there will be a 3 dB loss going from un-balanced to balanced hence no gain in doing that and there will be a corresponding loss when going from balanced-to un-balanced.lejonklou wrote:This is no conclusion of mine, it's common knowledge. Just as balanced is more effective at supressing interference, the circuits also become more noisy. I'd say that most balanced input circuits are at least 6 dB more noisy than their unbalanced counterparts.hcl wrote:... how do you come to the conclusion that balanced are more noisy?
But this is a lame argument and I shouldn't have brought it up. Because minimizing noise is not super important in my opinion. I have many times traded some noise for better stability, when the result has been more musical.
... but as, you wrote; That is lame argument to base any decisions on.
Sorry hcl, but your arguments are simplistic. To get a better understanding, take a look at actual circuits and summarize their sources of noise. Then you will find that a large contributor is the high value resistors required for a decent input load. Those cause most balanced inputs to be significantly more noisy than unbalanced.
Signal to noise is another matter. Any noise added after the volume control will remain, regardless of signal strength. So there it's best to keep the noise floor down.
Signal to noise is another matter. Any noise added after the volume control will remain, regardless of signal strength. So there it's best to keep the noise floor down.